>be British >claim the colonists were British citizens

>>74375103
>legitimate
No more or less legitimate as it was Mexican and Indian land, you cancerous hypocritical piece of shit.
Your nation is a cytotoxic stain in need of removing.

>>74375103
>Be murrishart.
>Pay approximately 2% of the taxes of a British citizen living in Britain.
>Taxes rarely even enforced at all anyway.
>Instigate a war with the French and their native allies, allow British soldiers to fight and bleed and die for you while you sit at home baking pop robbins.
>Taxes are now hiked to an eye-blistering, indefensible 4%, after a duties tax is imposed to attempt to combat rampant smuggling and to pay for the war the colonists started.
>Revolt because you don't feel like paying.
>Later claim it was about "representation", even though the colonists had their own local parliaments with legislative powers, which was already more than could be said for millions of subjects without the franchise.
Explain without resorting to memes.

hey now, it all worked out in the end

>>74375345
It was about representation.

The founding fathers never wanted to leave the empire, but your autistic ass parliament, and king, refused to allow the Americans to have any representation in parliament whatsoever. while being forced to pay increasingly more as well, as any and all taxes that the colonist had to pay to colonial governments which i assume you did not factor into your percentages. Also it was the Canadians that instigated the war.

>>74375182
the indians were never a "nation" they were bunch of fucking tribes that warred with eachother all the time. no better than Europe pre-Rome.

And Mexicans didn't even live in the United States area. unless your referring to the Mexican American War, which Texas wanted to become part of the U.S.

>>74375483
No it was not you mupit
It was about expansion
George had a lot of human rights policys that protected the natives and was against taking there land and damaging relationships
Dumb burger

File: 1492724511054.png (258KB, 549x560px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 549x560px

>>74375546
Why should a king have any say in what colonies do?

File: 1441831444957.jpg (79KB, 450x538px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 450x538px

>>74375483

>>74375578
>why should their leaders
Ironic that you're now the most cucked nation in the developed world when it comes to actually having a responsible government

>>74375483
The fact that the colonists didn't understand legal theory or parliamentary sovereignty is not a compelling argument in their favour, although it's my belief they did understand it. Burke:
>The Parliament of Great Britain sits at the head of her extensive empire [...] As all these provincial legislatures are only cooerdinate to each other, they ought all to be subordinate to her; else they can neither preserve mutual peace, nor hope for mutual justice, nor effectually afford mutual assistance. It is necessary to coerce the negligent, to restrain the violent, and to aid the weak and deficient, by the overruling plenitude of her power. She is never to intrude into the place of the others, whilst they are equal to the common ends of their institution. But in order to enable Parliament to answer all these ends of provident and beneficent superintendence, her powers must be boundless.
>The gentlemen who think the powers of Parliament limited may please themselves to talk of requisitions. But suppose the requisitions are not obeyed? What! shall there be no reserved power in the empire, to supply a deficiency which may weaken, divide, and dissipate the whole?
This legal precedent is not new and was immediately duplicated wholesale by the Americans in the supremacy of their Congress.
Hutchinson (who was born in the colonies) and Knox both believed that the colonists were however not ignorant of legal theory, that they knew fine well that having literal standing MPs in Westminster given the span of the Atlantic was extremely impractical and that they were effectively 'playing dumb'. Parliament made numerous peaceful overtures and offers of representation to the colonists and they were turned away. So what then was the colonists' legitimate grievance?

>>74375483
You don't understand the 'nation' concept

>>74375103
>justify killing thousands of them

easy, just because you are British, doesn't mean you get to escape punishment for being a traitor to the crown